AMD revealed performance numbers of its key product for mainstream notebooks, the A10-4600M, in an infographic for the Korean market. Besides detailing the part, it reveals some performance numbers. To begin with, A10-4600M is based on the 32 nm "Trinity" silicon with all its components enabled. It has four x86-64 cores spread across two "Piledriver" architecture modules, 4 MB of total cache (2x 2 MB), CPU clock speeds of 2.30 GHz (3.00 GHz TurboCore), and integrated Radeon HD 7660G graphics that has 384 VLIW4 stream processors, and GPU core speed of 685 MHz. The chip integrates a PCI-Express 2.0 root complex, and dual-channel DDR3-1600 MHz integrated memory controller.

Moving on to performance numbers, and as expected, the infographic doesn't touch comparative CPU performance with a barge-pole. Instead the focus is on graphics performance, with an emphasis on Dual GPU feature, where the integrated graphics can work in tandem with a discrete GPU of the same class, resulting in up to 75% performance increase. Based on data from this infographic, and its own testing data of other notebooks, NordicHardware compiled relative performance of the IGP and Dual Graphics setup involving the A10-4600M and Radeon HD 7670M discrete GPU.

Nice performance out of an APU, now if just the cpu part could be faster

Click to expand...

Sans gaming performance, I'm more interested to see how intelligent the power management is for the entire platform given that the GPU is paired with an AMD CPU. How low is power consumption with the dGPU shut down, does switching between the two GPUs work well and does it automatically switch depending on GPU load if no specific profile is present, can it dynamically adjust GPU clock and voltage on one or both of the GPUs, does TurboCore actually work this time and how often is it activated, how low is idle power consumption, how low is power consumption given the typical web browsing scenario, and so on. If it can deliver that graphics performance when it's needed but maintain high power efficiency when it's not regardless of the disadvantage it has to Intel in regards to raw CPU performance, I know what my next laptop will be.

eh AMD and those "power slides"... as far as I have seen AMD laptop apu tests - they are only good when you look at pricepoint, even "old" Intels Sandy's IGP 3000 could handle them in graphics tests and in CPU tests - Sandy vs anything from AMD - come on... and now AMD wants to compete with Ivy - ....whatever.

eh AMD and those "power slides"... as far as I have seen AMD laptop apu tests - they are only good when you look at pricepoint, even "old" Intels Sandy's IGP 3000 could handle them in graphics tests and in CPU tests - Sandy vs anything from AMD - come on... and now AMD wants to compete with Ivy - ....whatever.

eh AMD and those "power slides"... as far as I have seen AMD laptop apu tests - they are only good when you look at pricepoint, even "old" Intels Sandy's IGP 3000 could handle them in graphics tests and in CPU tests - Sandy vs anything from AMD - come on... and now AMD wants to compete with Ivy - ....whatever.

Click to expand...

Man, Ivy Bridge cannot even race with Llano, and Trinity will eat for breakfast:Here

eh AMD and those "power slides"... as far as I have seen AMD laptop apu tests - they are only good when you look at pricepoint, even "old" Intels Sandy's IGP 3000 could handle them in graphics tests and in CPU tests - Sandy vs anything from AMD - come on... and now AMD wants to compete with Ivy - ....whatever.

Click to expand...

Stop smoking too much green! Slides are always pretty. Just got me a 350 dollar laptop that has the amd Llano chipset and let me tell you, I can anything I want that I can do with my personal i7 laptop. For everyday use the laptop eats up everything I throw at it, browsing, mild gaming, word, spreadsheet, excel, running 10 windows at a time. The thing handles it and for 350 you can not beat it.

That's the older and slower 6620G and a quick estimation (from looking at the benchmarks) says it's about %20ish percent faster than the HD3000. Soo.. Yeah. It's faster. The CPU is not that fast though.

That's the older and slower 6620G and a quick estimation (from looking at the benchmarks) says it's about %20ish percent faster than the HD3000. Soo.. Yeah. It's faster. The CPU is not that fast though.

Click to expand...

Nootebookcheck is optimized to Intel, the differences are even bigger. I can run P894 3DMark11 with mobile A8-3550MX. The question is how much can make Sandy and Ivy Bridge?
Sandy Bridge 0 --> Ivy Bridge 600-700. Yes nice improvement over Sandy Bridge, but not even on Llano level.

Let me guess, they didn't show any CPU comparisons because Trinity loses in x86 performance even against Llano?

Dual Graphics is also just a gimmick as long as AMD won't support it properly and fix the stutter issues. It's only good for 3DMark for now. I'd only consider adding the discrete gpu for 17" models. I suppose it has marketing value, but people just get disappointed when they actually try to make it work like it's supposed to.

It's unfathomable how AMD got to this state after Phenom. If only they had just ditched it in time and kept enhancing Phenom until they actually got something that worked. AMD likes to point out that they have a "forward thinking" architecture and in the future it will be better utilized. Perhaps they should've also left BD for future too, since nobody wants it today.

I see AMD having some ideas as to how to compete against Intel in the future, but I highly doubt they will be able to execute those plans. Stuff like heterogenous computing will require more resources for it to work than what AMD can pull off, and it'll end up like most AMD's innovations: Buggy and unsupported by developers.

That was because just like Llano, it was in really short supply at launch. Just because something sold out right away doesn't mean it's constantly selling well. If AMD ships 100,000 BD CPU's and they are bought out immediately, they are sold out. If Intel ships 1,000,000 CPU's, and 250,000 sell immediately, they are still selling better. It's all in the context, AMD ships in lower numbers, and it appears as though the CPU's are in high demand, whichin fact the supply side is just low.

I'll stand by my continual statement that the only BD chip worth buying is the FX-8120, because at the price point with even a modest OC it's a solid offering, but the rest of the BD line is pretty much garbage.

As for the actual topic at hand, I am interested in one of those "dual-GPU" Laptops, could make for a decent light gaming laptop on days I just want to sit on the couch or lay in bed. I'd like to see some real world performance numbers, I hate just 3DMark scores.

Let me guess, they didn't show any CPU comparisons because Trinity loses in x86 performance even against Llano?

Click to expand...

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the numbers in this slide mean that CPU performance is 30% higher, GPU performance is 56% higher, and power consumption is 10% lower than Llano. These numbers line up with this slide that was leaked earlier this month.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the numbers in this slide mean that CPU performance is 30% higher, GPU performance is 56% higher, and power consumption is 10% lower than Llano. These numbers line up with this slide that was leaked earlier this month.

Sans gaming performance, I'm more interested to see how intelligent the power management is for the entire platform given that the GPU is paired with an AMD CPU. How low is power consumption with the dGPU shut down, does switching between the two GPUs work well and does it automatically switch depending on GPU load if no specific profile is present, can it dynamically adjust GPU clock and voltage on one or both of the GPUs, does TurboCore actually work this time and how often is it activated, how low is idle power consumption, how low is power consumption given the typical web browsing scenario, and so on. If it can deliver that graphics performance when it's needed but maintain high power efficiency when it's not regardless of the disadvantage it has to Intel in regards to raw CPU performance, I know what my next laptop will be.

Click to expand...

+1
They mentioning here really good battery times, like 3:20 hours 3DMark06, but probably this is just with 9cell battery and in the most optimal case.
I'm also really curios if GPU or CPU can be overclocked or no. Curios if FS1r2 compatible with FS1r1 or not?...